The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not have any dolusence on the fact that the return of the water pumps of this case is not the area of E, but the time to return the water pumps, and that E may transport the cargo without safety measures, such as arbitrarily returning the water pumps without the Defendant’s instruction. Therefore, there is no responsibility for violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two million won by fine) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above argument by stating in detail the defendant's assertion and its decision under title "a decision on the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below, which is identical to the reasons for appeal in this part. It is reasonable to review the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, and it seems that the return of the oil pumps in this case is part of E, such as returning the oil pumps leased several times using the freight vehicle in this case before the case, and the on-site director, I returned the oil pumps on the day of the case and stated that "I returned the oil pumps remaining at the site" and "I returned the oil pumps remaining at the site", and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal reasoning of the judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment of this case by arbitrarily moving the oil pumps from the defendant's specific instruction or the work instruction of the defendant's worker to Kimcheon-si at will without any influence on the conclusion of the judgment of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant's judgment on the argument of unfair sentencing is based on the same crime.